The Litmus Tests of Self-Consciousness

"Cogito Ergo Sum" is a Latin phrase coined by Rene Descartes. When translated to english, it means "I think, therefore I am".  The statement philosophically suggests that the very act of thinking demonstrates the reality of one’s existence and consciousness.

However, IM argues that the dictum is wrong based on: first, the Two Brain Theory, a notion  parallel to the concept behind the phrase " no man is an island"; second, some organisms are alive and conscious but without brains; and third, some organisms experience existence and consciousness in different ways as illustrated in the evidence below:

 i. The Lawsin Syndrome:

Is it really me or it is only in the brain?

This is the very first intuitive question raised when he saw his face, half of which was missing just like the picture above minus the mechanical gears. Yes, this patient's face was half empty, hollow, concave as he was looking at himself on the washroom mirror. His right eye, right ear, right half of his nose, lips and chin were nowhere to be found. The unusual disturbing phenomenon actually happened several times in his childhood days. The event might be weird but it's true.

Is his perception of reality an illusion or just a distorted form of consciousness?


ii. Astral Projection:

The representation of astral projection on this picture is totally deceptive.

The picture above made me laugh when I saw this posted on different websites and books. The artist or promoter of such concept either has no personal experience about the phenomenon of astral projection or has zero idea of what an out of body experience really is.

AP is a very important topic because it suggests that soul exits.

Some practitioners believe that the body is separated from the mind. Some believe that the soul lives in the mind and leaves when the body dies. Some equate the soul with consciousness. Whatever the idea is, the concept seems to be any ones guess. However, experiencing OOB four times in my life, led me to the conclusion that the soul doesn't exist.

Sometimes common sense observations and experiences are not sufficient enough to make us believe. Empirical experiments and qualitative investigations are also needed to backup our perceptions of the real world. Following the regimens of all of these scientific requirements, I have objectively concluded that the soul is simply a product of imagination. Let me explain.

When I was young, ....


iii. Dreams:

a picture is worth a thousand pixels

What are dreams? Is it part of consciousness? Is it a product of emotions (eg. a lost feeling), a half-way occurrence (eg. a to be continued event), or simply an energizer switch (eg sleep)?

Have you ever experienced in your life that sensation of incompleteness? The feeling of not finishing a certain event and finding its way into your dream? Like meeting a familiar face while walking on a street and abruptly forget the event until you go to bed and finds its way in your dream??

And what about the sensation of falling from the edge of your bed that suddenly becomes a part of your dream and triggers a safety warning in your mind to wake you up and stops your body from falling down the floor?

Or, walking while sleeping? Are we conscious when we are dreaming?


iv. Synesthesia: The Distorted Sense of Reality:

Why some synesthetes who can taste the color red can see colors by tasting? Why some see by hearing, smell by touching, taste by hearing, or even smell sounds? Are senses interchangeable just like the way ears for seeing, nose for tasting, or skin for hearing? Is this mixed sense caused by the environmental experiences we had inside our mother's womb?

Or, if some people and animals can interchange their senses of hearing, touching, smelling, etc., could it be because our biological sensors originated and evolved from the largest organ in our body; the skin? If so, could the skin be the area where consciousness reside as pointed out in the book Originemology?

According to IM, our senses are triggered individually and not collectively. However, our brain when in overdrive sometimes messes up things that we sense: seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, smelling and balancing. Sometimes what we say influences what we hear and sometimes what we see changes what we hear. Even more, sometimes what we think can change what we hear? A simple experiment is all that it takes!

Recently, an app was developed by the author as part of his ingenious experimental strategies on the developmental origin of self-awareness. It is a game application where insects are smashed by tapping each one with a finger to score points. When bugs are deliberately tapped continuously, the word "HIT" sounds off repeatedly over and over again.

The fun part of the app is when the word HIT in your mind is mentally replaced with the word "HIP" from after minutes of playing, something amazing happens inside the brain. Although the ears hear “HIT,” the brain says “HIP”. Furthermore, the weirdest part of this experiment is when you try to replace back the word HIP with HIT, your brain will not let you do it anymore. You're totally stuck at the moment!

This quick or brief phenomenon is known in I.M. as the Brain Priority Effect. Sometimes called the Q-priority preference, the theory reveals that our brain prioritizes the outputs of our sensory organs. In the above case, it goes from the brain to the ears.

In addition, the above theory also reveals that Q-priority not only pertains to the outputs but also to the inputs acquired by our biological sensors. This is one of the main ingredients that brings a robot to self-consciousness, a secret method foretold in the book Biotronics: The Silver Species. (Lawsin, 1988)

v. The Thinking Mistakes of the Brain:

These are multiple examples compiled by the author that illustrate some of the thinking mistakes the brain decides which humans subconsciously make all the time.

One example is an experiment Lawsin conducted using a coin. He named this the Gambler's Gambit.

Imagine you are playing Heads or Tails with someone. You flip the coin to him each time guessing whether it will be a head or a tail. Mathematically, we know that the chance of turning it either a tail or head is 50-50 each flip. However, most people will still insist that even though you flipped the coin several times and it always turned up heads every time, the chance of a tail in the next flip is much higher than before. This prediction is again incorrect! The next chance of converting the flip into tail is still 50-50. The chance don't change :-)

For the next stage of his experiment, Lawsin incorporated the Frequency of Occurrence Illusion. It is a thinking mistake where the brain seeks out information that's related to such information occurring frequently everywhere. A good example of this occurs when someone is in love. The name of the sweetheart seems to be seen everywhere; on a commercial, a character in the movie, on a billboard or a wall, in a newspaper or page of a book. Or, when someone in the office, who is wearing a green shirt, notices other people in the building also wearing the same color of clothes. This phenomena is sometimes called Synchronicity.

Here are other interesting examples from another of Lawsin's experiments:
a) The Belief Bias - humans dismiss or ignore logical facts that are not in accordance with their beliefs.
b) The Majority Effect - humans conform to social decisions based on quantity of numbers.
c) The Software Illusion - humans perceive only the face value of what they sense.

NOTICE: Articles on this site are composed on random thoughts. The transcript may not be in its final form. It maybe edited, updated or even revised in the future based on the outcomes of the author's R & D.

Public Domain Notice: Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved. This article is part of a book entitled Biotronics: The Silver Species. Copies are welcome to be shared or distributed publicly as long proper citations are observed. Please cite as follows: Biotronics: The Conscious Robots, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

"Just because you have a brain doesn't mean you are conscious;
just because you are alive doesn't mean you have a brain." 
~ Joey Lawsin

================================================================== 

The Homotronics® and Homodruinos® logos are registered trademarks. Copyright Biotronics© Inc. iHackRobot®. All Rights Reserved.
Patent Pending. 2000 © ®

 ==================================================================

Degrees of Self-Awareness

Abstract:

From a recent case study on Originemology, the theory on Information Materialization unfolded various degrees of self-awareness based primarily from the evolutionary standpoint of animals' mental development. The primary subjects of the experiment were two dogs, an Alaskan malamute that serves as the control variable and a chihuahua that serves as the experimental. As part of its ingenious strategies, the study also experimented other specimens like house rats and domestic cats via common-sense observations and data-based protocols. In the paper, a comparative study between I.M. and in particular the research entitled the evolutionary of self-awareness developed in human infancy authored by Philippe Rochat, are analyzed, argued, and articulated.

Introduction:

Self-awareness is arguably one of the hardest problem in robotics, not only due to designing intricate logic electronic circuitry and programming modular apps but also due to both developmental(degrees) and evolutionary(stages) stand points.

In a recent study, a mirror was used to test awareness on children and animals. Accompanying the experiment were questions, such as: what does it mean and what does it take to recognize oneself in a mirror? What do children see when they see themselves in a mirror? Do they see that it is themselves or do they perceive someone else at the back of the mirror? Is the mirror perceived as a mere extension of the world like a housefly repeatedly banging into your sliding glass door? A level 0 category?

Newborns do not come to the world with self-awareness, a degree of self-consciousness as suggested in the book Originemology. However, empirical findings resulted from Rochat research suggest that immediately after birth, infants are capable of demonstrating such self-sense on their bodies. This is evident, for example, when touching the cheek of newborns.

Through systematic comparisons, few major indices manifested on children consciousness were noted, like the first smile, first step, first word, tongue protrusion, etc. However, I.M. argues that if children don't have concepts or words of these actions in their minds, how did they label, associate or represent these first expressions? With what? Mimicry? Symbolism? Third Person?

The poet Arthur Rimbaud once said "Je est quelqu'un d'autre", which translated means "I is someone Else", suggested that we conceive ourselves through the eyes of the others is indeed true. Rochat & Striano, 1999, proposed that self-awareness should be treated as a co-construction , the experience of co-awareness constructed in interaction with others and not constructed by the individual alone. It is not singular, but multiple.

I.M. also agrees with the co-construction theory. This is similar to the Two Brain Theory, a concept parallel to the famous phrase "No man is an island" proposed in the book Creation by Law. It argues that the statement - If  x  is conscious with x, then x is conscious - is definitely erroneous. x has no capacity or capability to become conscious. To be conscious, it needs an x and a y. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango!


Methodology:

In this paper, I will compare and contrast the works of other researchers, with emphasis on the work of Philippe Rochat on his thesis entitled "Five Levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life.", with my personal findings based on I.M.

Next, I will address some issues based on the following scientific questions:

1. When do dogs become aware of themselves?
2. How do they become self-aware?
3. Can awareness be classified into stages or layers?
4. What is the difference between self-recognition, self-identification and self-consciousness?

Then, the levels of consciousness according to Rochat, 1997:
0. Self-obliviousness - absence of self-awareness
1. Confusion of extended dimension
2. Differentiation of two worlds
3. Situational exploration
4. Identification of "me" - a cognitive index of an emerging conceptual self, Rochat 1995
5. Permanence - first person experience
6. Self-awareness - third person experience

Afterwards, the stages of consciousness based on medical research:
1. Comatose - less conscious
2. Anesthesia
3. Deep sleep
4. Inhibitors
5. Sleep walking
6. Epilepsy
7. Wakefulness - more conscious

And subsequently, the IM hierarchy of consciousness based on the evolution of everything:
1. Humans
2. Orangutans
3. Trees
4. Corals
5. Bacteria
6. Weather
7. Universe

Finally, I will present the findings resulted from the Bowlingual Experiment where Zero and Peanut are the primary subjects on this research. I will also present some common sense experiments I have observed with household rats and cats.


Interpretation / Conclusions:

Self-awareness is an evolutionary process. It has different stages of development which starts from simple to a more complex system. It becomes highly animated as the system becomes more involuted, interconnected, intertwined. It increases and decreases with time.

Likewise, perception originally rooted from actions in the environment and subsequently expressed by symbolic means such as words or labels. This interpretation is consistent with the Caveman in the Box Theory.

And accordingly, just because you have a brain doesn't mean you are conscious; and, just because you are alive doesn't mean you have a brain are two distinct discoveries that led IM to the conclusion that " Matter is alive since the beginning of time".

NOTICE: Articles on this site are composed on random thoughts. The transcript may not be in its final form. It maybe edited, updated or even revised in the future based on the outcomes from the author's R & D.

Public Domain Notice: Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved. This article is part of a book entitled Biotronics: The Silver Species. Copies are welcome to be shared or distributed publicly as long proper citations are observed. Please cite as follows: Biotronics: The Conscious Robots, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

"Just because you have a brain doesn't mean you are conscious;
just because you are alive doesn't mean you have a brain." 
~ Joey Lawsin

================================================================== 

The Homotronics® and Homodruinos® logos are registered trademarks. Copyright Biotronics© Inc. iHackRobot®. All Rights Reserved.
Patent Pending. 2000 © ®

 ==================================================================

The Consciousness Conundrum

Not so long ago, people believed the world was always flat, earth was the center of the galaxy, marriage was only for a man and a woman, and that the gods created the universe. Nowadays, they are all things of the past. Science, mathematics and technology gave humans the tools to correct these false notions. Yet, there is one fundamental question that has never been rationally resolved by these tools and that is; Does Consciousness emanate from the brain?

Some medical scientists believe that consciousness arises from the brain. Without the brain, consciousness wont exist. Evidence after evidence shows that conscious comes from the brain as shown by the effects of anesthesia, drugs, brain damage, and comatose to name a few. However, there are other scientists who believe that consciousness doesn't come from the brain. Some believe it emits from a source as a em-signal just like the way a boy wirelessly control a drone. The source is the transmitter and humans are the receiver. Others believe that consciousness is a universal effect caused by the cosmos itself, or that it could be transferred into someone's memories by previous lives, or it stays and comes back intact unaffected by those who have been in near death or out of body experiences.

However, according to the Theory of Information Materialization, Consciousness doesn't emanates in the brain. The claim comes from one particular principle called the Codexation Dilemma. It states that " Man cannot think/visualize /sense something without associating/representing such thing with a physical object " (if a dog is not aware of itself(mirror test), then that dog is not conscious; to be conscious in IM there must be dualpairing). The claim is also supported by the following theories like Black Train Experiment, the Software Illusion, and the Scription Jump which all can be found in the book Originemology.

So, what is the codexation dilemma?

When man thinks, the subjects in his mind are always abstracts. If he thinks of an apple, the image of an apple in his mind is an abstract subject. He makes the apple REAL when he physically touch, see, taste a physical apple. The abstract idea of an apple becomes real when a physical object is present. Thus, to make something real, the abstract subject must become a physical object.

But which comes first, the abstract idea of the apple or the physical apple? Do humans think first and label next or vice-versa?

Take note that the apple is a physical object. It is a product of the inherent world, the physical universe, that came first before the human brain. However, the word apple is simply a *LABEL that represents the fruit. The word is an identifier which can be associated with a certain physical object. The object apple can also be labelled with other names. It can be named orange, or lettuce, or frog, or any other words. As long the name is accepted by the majority, it is then accepted by the society. This is how humans rule the Laws of the Land, the Majority Pulse Effect.

Squiggles

Now, if a person thinks of the letter K and he writes it on a piece of paper, is the letter now a real object? If a person thinks of a squiggly line and scribble it on the sand, is the output of his thought now considered a physical reality? If humans have the power to create things that don't exist in the inherent world (all things Mother Nature has created) are these things considered real, true and void?

How do humans get such power to create? Where do their abstract imaginations come from? Is it from the brain or is it from nature? Which then created consciousness, is it the brain or is it mother nature?  If  humans can create abstracts, like the idea of consciousness, is the idea real, true or void without even presenting any solid physicality? Is consciousness real or still the product of abstractness?

How did consciousness gradually evolve during the evolution of man who was born with an empty mind? Is consciousness inborn? What it does? Why it evolved? Does it die when we die?  Is it the same with everyone? What is to be consciousness within oneself, being alive and having a mind? Are organs like heart, kidneys or internal inputs part of consciousness? How consciousness react with virtual reality?

Consciousness can be defined by the following levels of awareness:
1. Coma
2. Anesthesia
3. Deep sleep (REM)
4. Inhibitors (drugs)
5. Sleep walking
6. Epilepsy
7. Wakefulness

In philosophy, it is defined by:
1. The Easy Problem: how does the brain work?
2. The Hard Problem: how the activities in the brain accounts for ones personal experience?
3. The Real Problem: Is it the experience that change us or it is us that change the experience?
4: The True Problem: Is consciousness an illusion?

Hermann Von Helmholtz once said: The brain is a prediction machine. It thinks using the Best Guess method. Consciousness becomes vividly aware when it makes expectations.  However, its perception is believe to be a control hallucination.

Why can we trick our brain?
1. Optical illusions
2. Hit / Sit mental persistence
3. Pavlovian conditioning (reward system)
4. the xylophone analogy
5. philosophical zombies



Who is more conscious?
1. Humans
2. Elephants
3. Orangutans
4. Dogs
5. Worms
6. Beavers
7. Whales
8. Ants
9. Owls
10. Bees
11. Plants
12. Trees
13. Octopus
14. Corals
15. Spiders






What makes one more conscious?
1. Number of neurons
2. Particular region of the brain
3. Neural Activity
4. Evolutionary progression (staircase analogy)
5. Environmental layers of development
6. Caveman in the box Effect

The Xylophone Analogy:

The xylophone analogy was proposed by jlawsin to demonstrate the emergence of consciousness in the mind of a robot. A xylophone is a musical percussion which is made up of a set of colored bars of different lengths that are struck with mallets. Music is not anywhere on the bars. It doesn't exist on the instrument. But, when the mallets hits the bars accordingly, sound or music is produced. Consciousness does likewise. When the brain structure and the neurons dynamics are on its high level of firing activities, the sense of consciousness emerges.

Remember, being alive is not totally the same as having a mind. One who is alive doesn't mean one has a mind. A robot might have an electronic mind but it doesn't mean it is alive. However, if a robot has the ability to label things, then the robot has a mind and probably conscious as well. (jlawsin 1988 Biotronics)


* Label means to identify, associate, tag, mark, distinguish, define, represent a one to one correspondence.
** Carpe Diem - enjoy life while you have still the chance.

" I label x with y, therefore I am conscious." ~ joey lawsin

NOTICE: Articles on this site are composed on random thoughts. The transcript may not be in its final form. It maybe edited, updated or even revised in the future based on the outcomes from the author's R & D.

Public Domain Notice: Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved. This article is part of a book entitled Biotronics: The Silver Species. Copies are welcome to be shared or distributed publicly as long proper citations are observed. Please cite as follows: Biotronics: The Conscious Robots, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

"The subconsciousness of the body 
is more powerful than 
the consciousness of the mind." 
~ Joey Lawsin

================================================================== 

The Homotronics® and Homodruinos® logos are registered trademarks. Copyright Biotronics© Inc. iHackRobot®. All Rights Reserved.
Patent Pending. 2000 © ®

 ==================================================================

The Four Marks of a Self-Conscious Robot

In his latest book, The Silver Species, Lawsin demonstrated how to develop a self-programming algorithm based partially on a simple flowchart he named The Four Marks of a Conscious Robot. 

1. It can transcodify information to physicals; the primary indicator of consciousness.
2. It can transform physicals into actions or movements; the first universal instruction.
3. It can transfer motions into mechanical, repetitive, or autonomous actions.
4. It can translate the mechanical persona (feeling, thinking, behaving) like of the homodruinos into a learned instinct "conscious being".

Before we discuss in details how the Four Marks can make a self-conscious robot, let us define first what are consciousness, subconsciousness and unconsciousness? Then, let us find out if consciousness and subconsciousness really exist or are they just illusions? And finally, does consciousness emerge in the brain or is it all mechanical; an action-reaction, sensor-actuator type of emergence?

English philosopher John Locke viewed consciousness as a psychological concept defined as "the perception of what passes in a man's own mind". In the early 19th century, the concept was considered - as a kind of mental substance totally different from the physical world. In neuropsychology, it is defined in terms of alertness or responsiveness characterized by the patterns of electrical activities in the brain recorded by a device known as electroencephalograph.

Meanwhile, psychoanalysts define subconsciousness as a mental processes occurring just below the level of awareness. It is a zone between the conscious and the unconscious. Although in popular usage, subconscious and unconscious are often taken as synonymous, the distinction can be defined by examples like sleeping is to subconsciousness as comatose is to unconsciousness.

In my opinion, consciousness is a product of data gathering. It is like gathering the necessary ingredients (heat, fuel, oxygen) to produce fire. Fire is to consciousness as heat, fuel, oxygen is to read, think, write. When the body receives information, processes such information, and uses the information, the body becomes mechanically conscious. When the body knows what its doing, the body becomes physically self conscious.

Automatons are examples of mechanically conscious objects. But are they aware of themselves? Do they have the perceptions for what they are programmed? Do they know what they are doing? Can they be considered conscious? Do they have the ability to label physical objects? Do they have the ability to transform these physicalities to abstractness? Do they have the ability to transform these abstractness to physicalities ?

 ==================================================================

"The consciousness of the mind 
is less powerful than the subconsciousness of the body." 
~ Joey Lawsin

==================================================================

NOTICE: Articles on this site are composed on random thoughts. The transcript may not be in its final form. It maybe edited, updated or even revised in the future based on the outcomes of  the author's experiments.

Public Domain Notice: Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved. This article is part of a book entitled Biotronics: The Silver Species. Copies are welcome to be shared or distributed publicly as long proper citations are observed. Please cite as follows: The Biotronics Project, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

================================================================== 

The Homotronics® and Homodruinos® logos are registered trademarks. Copyright Biotronics© Inc. iHackRobot®. All Rights Reserved.
Patent Pending. 2000 © ®  ==================================================================

" Consciousness is the ability of an object to transform physicalities 

to abstractness or vice versa. " ~ Joey  Lawsin

Amazing Tiny Brains Creating Super Complex Structures

Spectacular videos that might change your perspective about intelligent brains!

A tiny pufferfish, with a small size brain, creating intricate "crop circles" on the seabed using only its fin, cleaning all out the debris on the sand structure, decorating its construction, and  planning to attract a mate.

Ants, another small creatures with very small brains, creating a super complex colony complete with air-conditioning, waste disposal and family hierarchies.

A spider, another creature with a small brain, constructing a very intricate web pattern

Wasp, another being with a small brain, building complex almost perfect patterns of hexagonal nests, with the ability to count the number of nest for each offsprings.

Bird brain means stupid? Think again after watching this bird sewing its nest.

Since I was a kid I have been playing with these cute tiny bugs. What fascinate me about these insects, either called sow bugs or pill bugs, was they can be found everywhere. Sometimes I even thought them as the Holy Grail of Evolution because they can be found in all parts of the world as well. I encountered them in Alaska, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North and South Americas.

Now, are all these insects have intelligent brains? Are they aware of themselves? Do they think? In psychology, the awareness of one’s own ability to think is called metacognition. It is thought to reside on a region of the brain called the prefrontal cortex that stores many cognitive functions like planning and reasoning. It is believed to be the common factor that distinguishes humans from other species.

If the prefrontal cortex permits metacognition, then species that demonstrate metacognition are self-aware and have the ability to think. However, simply identifying which species exhibit self-aware behavior has been proven to be tricky because no reliable behavioral tests for the trait exist.

In 1970 Gordon G. Gallup, Jr., of the University at Albany, developed the “mirror test” to assess metacognition in chimpanzees. However, some of the chimps failed to recognize themselves thus causing certain scientists to consider the test unreliable.




 ==================================================================

"There are no such things as problems;
problems only exist because of laziness." 
~ Joey Lawsin

==================================================================

NOTICE: Articles on this site are composed on random thoughts. The transcript may not be in its final form. It maybe edited, updated or even revised in the future based on the outcomes of  the author's experiments.

Public Domain Notice: Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved. This article is part of a book entitled Biotronics: The Silver Species. Copies are welcome to be shared or distributed publicly as long proper citations are observed. Please cite as follows: The Biotronics Project, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

================================================================== 

The Homotronics® and Homodruinos® logos are registered trademarks. Copyright Biotronics© Inc. iHackRobot®. All Rights Reserved.
Patent Pending. 2000 © ®  ==================================================================

The P vs NP Millennium Problem

The mathematical expression, P != NP,  is one of the seven millennium problems that even to this day has never been solved. The P vs NP is a mathematical problem that inquires if a computer has the ability to verify the solution of a problem, does it has also the capability to quickly solve the problem without undergoing into a series of data gathering. The author was intrigued in solving this problem due to the reason it can provide a clue on how to create a self conscious robot.

A good example of this PNP problem is finding a particular person on a list of names. Man and computer have the ability to easily locate a given name on a database. However, man and computer have no capability to quickly find the same name without scanning every name on given list. The ability to easily locate is the P statement, while the no capability to quickly find is the NP statement.

Is there a solution to the NP problem? Can the NP problem be solved?  This article will attempt to provide some meaningful solutions to the problem based on the principles behind I.M., the study on the development of algorithms and smart materials needed to produce a self conscious robot.

According to Information Materialization, P is not equal to NP. The conclusion is supported by the following theories commonly know as the Principle of the Four Causes.
a) The Caveman in the Box Theory
b) The One-to-one correspondence Label
c) The Scriptional Jump
d) The Algorithm of Queue

Based on the Caveman in the Box, Nature is the container or storage of information. Mother Nature is the keeper of all objects that we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. She is the holder of the universal list that contains the database of all living and non-living things. Objects like plants, birds, fish, elements, rocks, etc, are inherent information. Even their actions, shapes, movements, behaviors, features are also pieces of information that can be inlearned, copied, or acquired by the same humans, animals, and plants. They are the original sources of information. Nature is the Mother of all Information..

Information can only be acquired in two and only two ways: by choice and by chance. By Choice means information can be obtained from parents, teachers, books, schools, friends, lessons from animals or from nature, while By Chance means information can come from discovering new things, fortunate accidents, unexpected experiences, unknown events or nature's interventions. Whatever the case, the bottom line is every piece of information can be acquired or borrowed originally from one's environment.Humans, animals, plants, and the environment are individually pieces of information.

Information flows only in one direction - from the inherent world to the interim mind, from outside to inside, from physical to abstract. This one way principle is sometimes called the Scription Jump. As one of the signature theories of Originemology, it. is concerned with the following ingenuous questions: (i) Can I think of something without associating it with a physical object? If I think of an idea, is the idea real without a physical object associated to it?  (ii) When does an abstract idea become physically real? Is the idea of the letter "I" real when I write it on a piece of paper? If so, how does this abstract figure become a physical reality without being naturally inherent? (iii) How does my letter I "jumps" from abstract to physical?

Like the ideas of Zero and One, both are abstract concepts. They only exist in the mind by assumption. Mathematically, both words are called numerals by definition. When Zero is represented with the symbol 0 and One with 1, technically the words become numbers by association. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of the abstract numerals. By symbolic representation, both digits now exist materially outside the mind - the physical world; the world outside of ourselves, the inherent world that exists long time independently before the mind existed.

However, although 0 & 1 are created by definition, association, representation and assumption, can we now really consider these numbers as concrete objects or physical solid materials? If I write 0 and 1 on a paper, are they now materially or physically real? Can we consider the written numbers proof of their reality or existence? Can the numbers now be considered solid evidence and be accepted as real? How can we validate the paper evidence to be true, false, valid, or real? Are the numbers really existing or are they still abstract, imaginary or imagined?

Humans can learn things through the process known as one to one correspondence. This is accomplish through association, definition, representation, assumption or tagging, a method collectively called Labeling. We call a fruit an apple by definition, association, representation or by labeling. However, the apple can be changed to orange or pineapple depending on the rule of the majority. If the majority accepts that the apple should be named orange, then the majority wins.

When an object acquires, codifies, stores, retrieves and processes information, the object is perceived as an intelligent entity. Humans, although notorious as short-term thinkers, are believed to be intelligent because they possess these five basic functions. However, bacteria, algae, fungi, plants, animals and other natural objects like rocks, air, water are constantly experiencing some of these functions as well. These non-living objects embrace at least one of these five basic functions and some man-made objects like computers and robots are functioning artificially intelligent as well.

In order for a computer to execute NP it has to subscribe on five basic requirements:
First, a vast cache of information must be ready to be "read".
Second, the more complex a system becomes, the more materials and information are needed.
Third, the complexity of a system depends on the availability of materials found on its environment.
Fourth, the more materials, the more complex the algorithm becomes
Fifth, the flow of data must be delivered through the algorithm of Queue.


Excerpt: Creation by Law 1988

 ==================================================================

==================================================================

NOTICE: Articles on this site are composed on random thoughts. The transcript may not be in its final form. It maybe edited, updated or even revised in the future based on the outcomes of  the author's experiments.

Public Domain Notice: Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved. This article is part of a book entitled Biotronics: The Silver Species. Copies are welcome to be shared or distributed publicly as long proper citations are observed. Please cite as follows: The Biotronics Project, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

================================================================== 

The Homotronics® and Homodruinos® logos are registered trademarks. Copyright Biotronics© Inc. iHackRobot®. All Rights Reserved.
Patent Pending. 2000 © ®  ==================================================================

T.U.R.N. - The Ultimate Robotics Navigator

T.U.R.N. ®, an acronym for The Ultimate Robotics Navigator©, is the first autonomous robot of its kind that can navigate through rough terrains with 4 wheels, 4 legs or 4 propellers and an option to scout underwater. This robot, also dubbed as M.C.Z.P., pronounced as mississippi, is a multi-purpose 4 in 1 configuration engineered to provide the robot options to fly like a drone, walk like an insect, drive like a rover, and swim like a duck.

A state of the art aerial video system with a 3-axis stabilizer and HD camera is also attached on its body (not shown). It can be wirelessly controlled using an android phone or tablet through the app below. The robot can think, hear, smell, see, feel and balance itself. The robot can copy what information it senses, store these pieces of information on its microprocessor, label them digitally in a queue, and process them like a living organism.

M.C.Z.P. on wheels

M.C.Z.P. on its legs

M.C.Z.P. on its propellers

T.U.R.N. = The Ultimate Robotics Navigator App for McZP.

This robot can be controlled using an app. The app, which was programed by the author, can wirelessly control the robot using an android tablet or phone to drive, fly, walk and swim (still working on this feature) in all directions. It can also talk, drop dead, bow, sleep, and act as a security device by detecting motion(hear), triggering an alarm(shout), and flashing bright red leds(see).

T.U.R.N. = The Ultimate Robotics Navigator Apps

Disclaimer:  We shall not be liable for any loss or damage of whatever nature - direct, indirect, consequential, or otherwise - which may arise as a result of your use of any information on this website. However, if you are interested in using any of the projects for personal or educational purposes, please inform the author by email. 


 ==================================================================

"Unless SETI can find an earth-like environment in other planets;
  their search to find intelligent beings means nothing but failure."

~ Caveman in the Box, Joey Lawsin 1988

==================================================================

NOTICE: Articles on this site are composed on random thoughts. The transcript may not be in its final form. It maybe edited, updated or even revised in the future based on the outcomes of  the author's experiments.

Public Domain Notice: Copyright (c) 2000. All rights reserved. This article is part of a book entitled Biotronics: The Silver Species. Copies are welcome to be shared or distributed publicly as long proper citations are observed. Please cite as follows: The Biotronics Project, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

================================================================== 

The Homotronics® and Homodruinos® logos are registered trademarks. Copyright Biotronics© Inc. iHackRobot®. All Rights Reserved.
Patent Pending. 2000 © ®  ==================================================================